Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) on Monday, February 16, declined to interfere with the environmental clearance (EC) granted to the Rs 92,000 crore Great Nicobar Island mega infrastructure project, citing its “strategic importance” and the safeguards already imposed.
The Bench, headed by Chairperson Justice Prakash Srivastava, was hearing a batch of applications challenging the 2022 Environmental Clearance granted for the integrated project. The project includes: an International Container Transshipment Terminal (ICTT), a township and area development, and a 450 MVA (MegaVolt-Ampere) gas and solar-based power plant
What were the petitioners’ concerns?
The petitioners, led by environmentalist Ashish Kothari, raised concerns about:
Potential damage to coral reef colonies
Threats to leatherback turtle nesting sites
Alleged violations of the Island Coastal Regulation Zone (ICRZ) Notification, 2019
They argued that certain project areas fall within ecologically sensitive ICRZ-IA zones (Island Coastal Regulation Zone-IA), where ports, airports and townships are prohibited.
Under the ICRZ Notification, coastal areas in the Andaman and Nicobar and Lakshadweep Islands are classified into different categories:
ICRZ-IA: Ecologically sensitive areas such as coral reefs, mangroves, turtle nesting grounds and biosphere reserves. These are the most strictly protected zones, where new construction is largely prohibited.
ICRZ-IB: Intertidal zones (the area between the high and low tide lines).
ICRZ-II: Developed areas close to the shoreline.
ICRZ-III: Relatively undisturbed or rural coastal stretches.
ICRZ-IV: Water areas from the low tide line up to territorial waters.
The petitioners argued that infrastructure such as ports and townships cannot be permitted in ICRZ-IA areas.
What did the Tribunal say in its order?
In its order, the Tribunal upheld the Rs 92,000 crore project, citing its “strategic importance” and “other relevant considerations”, and said it found no “good ground” to interfere with the environmental clearance.
The Tribunal recorded that “adequate safeguards” have been provided in the EC conditions and noted that in the first round of litigation it had already refused to interfere in the EC.
It further observed that the remaining issues were dealt with by the High-Powered Committee and that, considering the strategic importance of the Project and taking into account the other relevant considerations, the NGT did not find any good ground to interfere.
In essence, the Tribunal held that the concerns raised had already been examined and addressed through earlier proceedings and expert review.
Why did the NGT refuse to intervene?
The Tribunal noted that:
In the earlier round of litigation in 2023, it had already declined to interfere with the clearance.
A High-Powered Committee (HPC), constituted after the earlier challenge, examined concerns relating to coral reefs, turtle nesting and other ecological issues.
The environmental clearance was revisited in light of the HPC’s findings.
Since these steps had been taken, the Tribunal said the issues raised had already been addressed.
Considerations behind the ruling
The NGT reiterated that the project carries significant strategic and defence importance. Referring to its April 3, 2023 findings, it observed that the project holds economic and strategic value for India in the Indian Ocean region and could help counter growing foreign strategic pressure.
The Tribunal noted media reports that the area figures in China’s “string of pearls” strategy, which India seeks to counter under its “Act East” policy.
The “string of pearls” is a term to describe China’s development of a network of ports and infrastructure projects across the Indian Ocean region, including in countries such as Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Myanmar, which could potentially enhance its strategic reach. India’s “Act East” policy is a diplomatic and economic initiative aimed at strengthening ties with Southeast Asian and Indo-Pacific countries. It also has a strategic dimension, seeking to enhance India’s presence and connectivity in the broader region.
It also referred to reports of marine resource poaching in the Andaman region by foreign nationals. According to the NGT, the project would help bridge infrastructure gaps on the island and promote international trade by reducing transshipment costs.
The Tribunal further observed that the appellants had not directly disputed the project’s strategic importance.
The order also referred to reports of large-scale poaching of marine resources in the Andaman region by individuals from Myanmar, for which several arrests have been made. According to the Tribunal, such activities include“destruction of corals, killing of sharks, and taking away valuable fishes.”
Finally, the NGT noted the project’s potential economic benefits, stating that it would “help bridge infrastructural gap in island and promote international trade saving huge amount on transhipment cargo.”
It also observed that even the appellants had not directly disputed the strategic importance of the project.
Emphasising the need for a “balanced approach”, the Tribunal said environmental safeguards and strategic considerations must be weighed together.
“A balanced approach is required to be adopted while considering the issue of allowing development of the port at a strategic location…,” the NGT said.
Referring to an earlier Supreme Court ruling that called for a holistic approach in balancing environmental protection with infrastructure development, the Tribunal observed that corals must be protected and their destruction cannot be permitted in violation of the ICRZ Notification, 2019. However, it noted that the respondents have proposed to safeguard corals through translocation measures.